There appear to be a large number of variants between the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese transmission of this dhāraṇī. TBRC is giving me error messages at the moment, so I can't check the different Kangyurs right now, but Gilgit Manuscripts Vol. 1 gives 1) the Giglit manuscript reading and 2) the Narthang Kangyur reading (sandhi is exactly as given in the edition):

The Chinese translation seems to have yet another version, but I can't read Chinese. The Gilgit manuscripts are very old (5-6th ct. CE), so they have a strong claim to be considered the original reading.

Translation of the Gilgit version:

namo ratnatrayāya

Homage to the Three Jewels.

namo vairocanāya tathāgatāya

Homage to the tathāgata Vairocana.

nama āryāvalokiteśvarāya bodhisattvāya mahāsattvāya mahākāruṇikāya

Homage to the Noble Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisattva, the mahāsattva, the Great Compassionate One.

[Notes: cale cale pracale pracale cannot be translated, as the translation from the Chinese in the link has done, as 2nd person imperatives. These are most likely feminine vocatives—a very common feature in dhāraṇīs—of calā and pracalā. This literally means trembling (or moving in general), an epithet for lighting. It is probably describing the dhāraṇī as being like lightning in the speed and brilliance with which it fulfills its effect. But these femine vocatives are always a little mysterious. kusumavare is also a single fem. vocative, not kusuma + vare. iṭṭe viṭṭe ili mili viṭi are just mantric sounds, but they sound strikingly Dravidian.]

Translation of the Narthang version:

namo ratnatrayāya

as above

nama ārya-jñāna-sagara-vairocana-buddha-rājāya tathāgatāya

Homage to the tathāgata, the King of Buddhas, the Radiant Sun of the ocean of noble wisdom.

[The compound ārya-jñāna-sagara-vairocana-buddha-rājāya can be analyzed in literally dozens of different ways. In the absence of a commentary I've just picked the most natural reading. Also note that Narthang (at least as reported by Dutt—I don't have access) has buddharāja "king of buddhas" instead of vyūharāja "king of the array".]

[Notes: strictly speaking dhara is the only correct (i.e. Pāṇinian) form of the 2nd pers. imperative of the root dhṛ, but if we accept dhuru as a possible alternative, I don't see why dhiri shouldn't also be translated as an even more non-standard 2nd pers. imp. "hold firm!"

The last bit is the most problematic. For citijvalam avanaya the OP has cetaṃ jvalaṃ apnaye and the link has cite jālam apanaya. They don't cite their sources, so it's impossible to say whether these are errors, misprints, or genuine variant readings. The Narthang reading citijvalaṃ avanaya "lead to the blazing heap" (where citi "heap" usually means the funeral pyre, which gives a rather macabre meaning) can also be interpreted as citi jvalaṃ avanaya "bring the blaze into the mind".

tantular wrote:Notes: cale cale pracale pracale cannot be translated, as the translation from the Chinese in the link has done, as 2nd person imperatives. These are most likely feminine vocatives—a very common feature in dhāraṇīs—of calā and pracalā.

This is probably incorrect. The -e ending was used in Magadhan Prakrit and is quite common in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. It is just a masculine nominative singular (see Edgerton's Grammar of BHS). Which makes more sense in this context IMHO.

The "feminine vocatives" theory goes back to the 1880s and H. Kern, the translator of the Sanskrit Saddharmapuṇḍarikā who wanted the words in the dhāraṇī chapter of that text to be the names of Hindu goddesses. Conze took up and popularised the idea. But they and every one else assumes that these words are Classical Pāṇini Sanskrit. Most Buddhists never used Classical Sanskrit. Most used some form of hybrid. Thus the idea that dhāraṇī follow Classical declensions was always tenuous. That they would do so in magic spells influenced by Dravidian sounds is hardly credible